Could you be convinced to die for your beliefs ? Religion and war for dummies

So imagine you were witness to the supreme being writing the ultimate truth for all mankind. Would you give the words to the world ?
This is quoted though edited from Richard Bach’s book One with a name change for my ego

“I want to give them of course !”

“and what will you call your gift”

“Does it matter ?”

“If you do not name it others will they will call it The book of Cody”

“I see alright I’ll call it The pages”

“And will you safeguard the pages or allow others to edit them, to change what they don’t understand, to strike out what they please whatever is
not to their liking? “

“ No, no changes it is the word of the supreme being”

Not a line here or there to help them understand ?

“Who are you to insist”

“I was there at their creation”

“So will you be the keeper of the pages?”

“Someone has to as long as they promise no changes ”

“And here begins the pageite priesthood. Those who give their lives to protect an order of thinking become the priests of that order. Yet any new
order, any new way is change and change is the end of the world as it is.”

“These pages are no threat, they are love and freedom.”

“And love and freedom are the end of fear and slavery.”

“Of course.”

“Those who profit from fear and slavery, will they be happy with the message of the pages?”
“Probably not, but we can’t let this light be lost.”

“Will you promise to protect the light?”

“Of course.”

“The other pageites, your friends, they’ll protect it too?”

“yes.”

“And if the profiteers in fear and slavery convince the king of this land that you are dangerous, if they march on your house, if they come with
swords, how are you going to protect the pages?”

“I’ll take them away, I’ll escape.”

“And when you’re followed and caught and cornered?”

“If I have to fight I’ll fight, there are principles more important than life. Some ideas are worth dying for.”

You know, the problem with a species created in the image of their creator is that when they become stuck in a hole of their own making, they'll use
their creativity to fill the hole with lies. And then they'll use those lies to build a city.

No one really cares about truth. They only care about being strong enough to do what they believe needs to be done.

What is the point of this? In Christianity the disciples did not fight and allowed themselves to be massacred while never turning from God. In that
defiance they turned others who witnessed it (hence the whole witness thing) and the religion grew. Then it was taken over by men and a new religion
was created with a headquarters and Egyptian sun-god and Babylonian statues which beat people for taxes (tithes) and waged wars for profit. It was
never of Christ.

That said, it was their burden to bare and they were warned that it would be so. Jesus preached non-violence, being slow to anger, but for the
general believer not to the point of allowing yourself or those around you to be murdered.

[edit]

In other words it doesn't matter what words the person was holding and trying to defend, the fact that someone wanted to murder him to stop him allows
for self-defense.

The fact that the disciples allowed themselves to suffer as Christ also suffered showed their devotion but in every case it was done publicly for the
edification of the murderers and in every case it backfired. If I saw this government horrifically murder someone for their beliefs my heart won't
belong to the government - regardless of what the belief was.

The point wasn't about christianity.
I'm sure the authour purposely avoided using jesus in the piece.
The point is more about for example can we be sure the bible is accurate after so many translations and versions ?
Remember the bible wasn't written in the times of jesus but 100's of years later, and if I remember correctly there is a line in dead sea scrolls
that can be translated as either "he came and smote his enemies and there was peace" or "he came in peace and smote his enemies" It depends on
where you put the emphasis on the words.

Originally posted by cody599
Remember the bible wasn't written in the times of jesus but 100's of years later

That isn't correct. Even by the most conservative dating by scholars (discounting kooks, of course,) the books of the New Testament were all written
within about 80 years of Christ's death, with the earliest of them (the letters of Paul) within about 20-30 years, and the majority of texts prior to
the destruction of the Temple and the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Could I be convinced to die for my beliefs? Sure... of what use is a belief if you're not willing to stand for it?

Could I be convinced to die for my beliefs? Sure... of what use is a belief if you're not willing to stand for it?

What use is a belief if you won't consider the possibility you might be wrong?

Who says that I haven't and/or won't? But if someone were to come up to me with a gun and say "renounce your belief in Christianity or die!" I'd
tell them to pull the trigger.

Additionally, it's a good idea to choose a belief you can defend properly. Like on the logical problem with hell thread.

I rarely debate beliefs, because I view them as personal things, and everyone is entitled to their own. I do, however, happily debate errors in fact,
claims made without evidence and those who present opinions as fact.

As for the "logical problem with hell", as I said in that thread, it's been done to death and I see no reason to rehash old topics. You're welcome
to, of course.

That isn't correct. Even by the most conservative dating by scholars (discounting kooks, of course,) the books of the New Testament were all written
within about 80 years of Christ's death, with the earliest of them (the letters of Paul) within about 20-30 years, and the majority of texts prior to
the destruction of the Temple and the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD.

That isn't correct. Even by the most conservative dating by scholars (discounting kooks, of course,) the books of the New Testament were all written
within about 80 years of Christ's death, with the earliest of them (the letters of Paul) within about 20-30 years, and the majority of texts prior to
the destruction of the Temple and the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Even so could you accurately recall and record an event from 20-80 years ago ?
I doubt it

Two thousand years ago, people had a rather different view of how to "recall and record" events, since they didn't have cameras, recorders, or even
a whole lot of writing going on. They used something called "Oral History", which was very accurate in retaining and dispersing information about
important events.

In addition, it is strongly believed that the original sayings of Jesus were written down very early on in a document referred to as "Q" (from the
German word for "source") and that three of the four Gospels used this document as the basis for much of their text.

Historians, not kooks, believe in the existence of a sayings Gospel, referred to as "Q", fragments of which remain in The Gospel of Thomas as
well as the Gospels in the New Testament. Since you're obviously ignorant of historical research and textual analysis, I won't trouble you with the
details.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.